Warbird Information Exchange

The most dangerous warbird has a dangerous pilot. Nothing is dangerous if it is operated properly.

_________________
"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" R.R.

Welcome to the USSA! One Nanny State Under the Messiah, Indivisible with Tyranny, Higher Taxes, Socialism, Radical Environmentalism and a Loss of Income for all. Boy I'm proud to be a part of the USSA, what can I do to raise taxes, oh boy oh boy!

There has long been a philosophy where the aircraft used to train in is intentionally more challenging than the front-line combat aircraft that graduates will go on to fly.

We have our volunteer Me 163 pilot!

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Tough question and hard to quantify. So many factors that have been already mentioned. I would think ANY warbird in the hands of someone who was in over his head or on the other side of the coin has so many hours that complacency has set in is dangerous. I've seen some that have been maintained according to a limited budget that are certainly questionable if not outright dangerous. I forget who said it but a Piper Cub can just barely kill you. I just feel that if any aircraft is maintained properly, and flown by competent and conscientious pilots, it minimizes the risk. We never know what happened in the last few seconds before any fatality but they seem to be very democratic in their scope without regard to age, experience or aircraft type.

_________________
The more I learn about aircraft, the more I realize I still have to learn.

BDK wrote:

An excellent point! Many of the early trainers were also (by definition) early, unrefined designs. But, in my opinion they also represented the philosophy of "build a trainer that is tough enough to fly that if they can master it, they can fly the bigger stuff". Remember, the T-6 is a refinement of the Yale, wider gear, better wing/stall, hydraulics meant no more leaning forward and down to manually roll in the flap on yor base to final turn etc.

Sometimes seemingly small things can add signifigant danger in a particular airframe, for example, the Beech Staggerwing is pretty straight forward but has a very troubling fuel management system that adds additional risk.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

Difficult is good. Unexpectedly lethal, particularly in the PT regime isn't, surely?

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

The MIG-21 looks scary to me...sitting in a hanger.

Isn't there a certain model of the T-28 that has had engine reliability problems? Was it just a certain engine or is it a maintenance thing?

Trainers do seem to have the reputation of being a bit tricky. There was a thread here recently talking about the violent Yale stalls...

ME-109 gear scares me too!

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

Randy wrote:

I agree. I was typing basically the same thing while you posted this. I have thought about this a lot and I think this changed with the advent of the T-28. The T-28 was designed to be more similar to the aircraft that you would fly as a follow on than to wash one out before they get to the "real thing". Just my opinion.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

Oh, bee serious now!

Depends on how you define "unexpectedly lethal". Aircraft with harsh handling characteristics in certain flight regimes aren't unexpectedly anything -- those are known characteristics in known areas of the flight envelope.

Those areas can be identified, and appropriate stick-and-rudder procedures taught. Just because that recognition of those areas of the flight envelope may be subtle, or the reaction when that area is reached is violent, or the procedures to recover from it are complicated....that doesn't mean the aircraft is unexpectedly lethal.

Students may be either taught to know where those flight regimes are and avoid them, or be taught how to recover when they get there.

Which of these PTs is such a wildcat that it will just reach out and do something unexpected at any random time without any warning?

Er, gee, that's a neatly set up question isn't it? My options are... Nil.

However, because I dunno when to quit - Savage stall/spin characteristics could be argued to be as detrimental to making a 'good' basic trainer as overly benign stall spin charecteristics are. Both the CAC Winjeel and Percival Prentice were rejected as trainers initially due to non standard stall spin charecteristics, making them useless as trainers - too benign and too unusual. Other trainers IIRC, have been rejected for entering inverted or flat spins too easily and having overly difficult recovery characteristics.

Ideally, a trainer should demonstrate an average or normal departure, to enable good standard management / recovery training. Unlike...

...I was thinking of the excellent thread re that nasty 'ol Yale.

Albert's superb post here:
http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... 1&start=33

While I take your point on board, Randy, and it's true as a principle, Eric's comment that designs like the Yale owed a lot of their nastier aspects to lack of good design. The science of developing a good training aircraft in W.W.II and II was actually pretty ropey, and many characteristics of types that made trainers are generally acknowledged as accidental, rather than design philosophy.

IMHO, the best primary trainers of W.W.II would probably be the Germans' Bucker Jungmann and Focke-Wulf Fw 44 Stigilitz - better certainly than the DH Tiger Moth and many other types, and more economical to operate if on a technical par with the Stearman.

Just some thoughts from a penguin.

_________________
James K

"Switch on the underwater landing lights"
Emilio Largo, Thunderball.

www.VintageAeroWriter.com

Randy wrote:

Randy,

I can only respond by referring to the differences between something like the Yale and other types that I have actually flown. Firstly, your question asks about PTs and the Yale is a BT but here goes: your observation is of course accurate. I think the big difference when you compare these types is that the "flight envelope" of most of the types you may be referring to were engineered to be as large and as symetrical as possible to still allow the misson to still be accomplished. Often characteristics that signal approach to dangerous/troubling flight regimes are engineered in. The stall buffet is a decent example. Simply stated, some of the airplanes I am referring to just don't have similar characteristics. An example of this would be comparing the stall characteristics of the T6 and Yale. Whereas the T6 has subtle but perceptable warning signs as you approach the stall, the simply put does not, one knot above you are flying the next you are not. Of course in controlled conditions this happens at the same (@ 1.3 vso) time, but accelerated stall conditions, well you get the picture. A more important thought is this, cruise is 130 mph, flap speed 110, approach speed 95, stall at 72. Not a lot of room in an airplane that virtually rolls on its back when stalled, weighs what a T6 does and has 160hp less hence almost no go around capability normally and certainly, no go around capability when its hot out.

Does it surprise you that its easy to design an airplane that has bad habits in 1938?

All this said, the Yales a great handling airplane and fun to fly if your always careful. I can't imagine what it must have been like to get in this "basic trainer" with 25-30 hours of total time in a Stearman. When we get in the same place at the same time, I will let you flight it and judge for yourself.

_________________
Eric

"I spent most of my money on alcohol, women and skyraiders....and the rest of it I just wasted."

Question for Randy,
With your current ride how many flight management computers can you lose before the recommended solution is to give it back to the taxpayers and stop trying to wrestle with the dragon?

_________________
Don't make me go get my flying monkeys-

The Eagle has one. When it's gone, the jet still flies and maneuvers just fine -- in fact, this is one of the flight regimes we teach new Eagle pilots on their very first ride in the aircraft.

All valid points...and the fact that you could explain them to me in about three paragraphs means that the Yale isn't some crazy machine that will just kill you at any time. It has defined areas of the envelope that you can describe on the ground and show to me in flight.

The point of my post was not if the Yale was a good or bad training airplane vis a vis the T-6. Clearly it has handling properties that are not all that desirable. But is it "unexpected"?

Is it this big mystery that students will wait to happen unannounced? That's really the point of my earlier post -- bad handling characteristics are known and can be taught around.

With respect to teaching students on an airplane with some bad manners, I guess the difference is the military training philosophy -- in all the aircraft I've ever learned to fly, there is an "Advanced Handling Characteristics" portion of the training. That whole point of AHC is to go out and find those parts of the flight envelope where the airplane does something that is surprising, or different, or dangerous. You expose a new pilot to it right from the start -- explain what it's going to look and smell like, then go out to the airplane and go see it for yourself up at altitude where there is much less danger.

That way, you know what flight regimes are to be avoided, and if you get yourself there, you know what to do to get out of it.

So, you don't end up with someone who says, "oh, I hope I never pull to an accelerated stall in the final turn, because the airplane will roll over and die."

Instead, you have someone who has DONE exactly that up at altitude, who knows that there is no buffett warning, who knows what some of the other characteristics of approaching an accelerated stall are, and knows what a nasty stall it produces. That pilot will thus perch wider, keep their speed up, etc, go around when there is any question about overshooting the runway.

Does this make a narrow margin for error? Absolutely -- nobody is saying it doesn't. But that is the nature of flying airplanes, isn't it?